The point was that investigating human practices, human phenomena, is by definition a kind of phenomenology. — Janus

Wittgenstein is talking about meaning and reference.
For example, an argument against private language.

many scholars regard the PI as a phenomenological investigation of human life. — Janus

Who are those scholars? I never heard of that.

I think this is quite a different kind of investigation than ordinary language philosophy, although the latter is arguably a kind of phenomenology, just much more limited in scope. — Janus

Yes, a small "p" phenomenology. No presumption about consciousness or subjectivity.

the idea that everything lies open to view doesn't seem right; — Janus

A bit paradoxical, but I think Wittgenstein is on to something. I don't think this means we understand things simply by looking at them. I think he is alluding to what was called ordinary language philosophy.

IOW, for a traditionalist Asian person, your argument would be unsound. Just pointing out the limited applicability of your argument. — baker

Arguing one myth against another.

I do not think meaning is a function of cause and effect or any fact. Meaning is not derived from any fact. Meaning has to do with value. Not necessarily subjective.

I have asked you what you believe others are referring to when they use the word, "meaning" and I'm still waiting on that. — Harry Hindu

I answered. You should have told me you did not understand it and I would have gladly explained.

I'm saying that meaning is the relationship between cause and effect and reference is a type of causal relation. — Harry Hindu

Still waiting for your proof.

What do the tree rings mean? — Harry Hindu

You are confusing reference with meaning.

Meaning exists where ever causes leave effects. — Harry Hindu

Where is your proof of that? Just asking you a question.

I'm no longer interested in what you think. — Harry Hindu

If you think asking questions is a form of hostility then maybe you shouldn't participate on a philosophy forum.

No, it's yours as you are the one that thinks that value and meaning are objective. — Harry Hindu

I never said that.

If 'seeking meaning' is seeking value then what makes a life valuable if not the effects it has on the world? — Harry Hindu

That sentence made no sense.

Why wouldn't you want to do that? — Harry Hindu

It is your issue not mine.

You edited your post where you seemed to disagree that value is subjective. — Harry Hindu

I post the relevant information. Something any philosopher knows how to do.

Why don't you go ask a serial killer what the meaning of life is. — Harry Hindu

Why would I want to do that?

All you have to do is watch the news to see that the value of human life varies from individual to individual. — Harry Hindu

What news show are you referring to? Is this another opinion with no evidence presented again?

Ad hominems and intellectual dishonesty are not an argument against anything that I have said. You would flunk a class in logic. — Harry Hindu

No, I do very well in logic.

Each human places varying degrees of value on different things, therefore meaning cannot be something objective and asking others what the meaning of life is would be useless. — Harry Hindu

That is just your subjective opinion.

Then meaning is equivalent to value? — Harry Hindu

Yes, took you a long time to figure that out.

Have you not suggested an answer yourself. Meaning is a human measure of significance. A measure of profundity, which has a range from low to high, small to big! — universeness

Yes, he clearly did not comprehend.

If you answered it point me to where you answered it. If you think asking questions is a form of hostility then maybe you shouldn't participate on a philosophy forum. — Harry Hindu

I think you do not know what cause and effect means. You confuse cause with meaning. I think you would flunk an intro philosophy class. Your questions are formal and show lack of understanding.

I didn't ask why people ask it. I'm asking what they are saying, or assuming, when asking. Again, what is meaning? — Harry Hindu

I answered it. You did not understand it. Look, I am tired of the hostility on this forum, ok?

Why don't you try answering the question about what people are asking when they are asking what the meaning of life is. What is meaning? — Harry Hindu

Psychological satisfaction.

I'm more interested in why you don't think that, not that you actually don't think it. — Harry Hindu

I don't see the connection because causes and meaning. A ball falls if I release it from my hand. How is meaning derived from that?

If meaning is the relationship between cause and effect then meaning is innate to the universe. — Harry Hindu

I don't think the idea of a meaningful life is based on there being causes and effects.

Get lost.

This is from Turing,
" The view that machines cannot give rise to surprises is due, I believe, to a fallacy; this is the assumption that as soon as a fact is presented to a mind all consequences of that fact spring into the
mind simultaneously with it." https://www.csee.umbc.edu/courses/471/papers/turing.pdf

Here criticizing the idea that a machine cannot be creative.

The Universe doesn't hand out meaningfulness. It just is, and we are part of it. — Bitter Crank

Agree.

Oh, that's interesting. It looks tricky to me, because, why use consciousness when intelligence can be way more efficient? — Manuel

That is my point, yes.

science is no closer to solving it that it has ever been — enqramot

AI is an engineering problem. No need to have a theory of consciousness.

The issue then become, to what extent is it intelligible to create a separation between consciousness and intelligence? — Manuel

I separate them. Consciousness is a function of intelligence. But intelligence can function without consciousness.

I believe talking about consciousness in relation to computers can only be dictated by a marketing strategy. — enqramot

AI is here and getting more complex. Again, I don't see the importance of self awareness.

But the nature of consciousness has eluded science for such a long time that it's impossible not to see it as a huge challenge. — enqramot

Much to debate here, and worthwhile. My short answer is that I think people make consciousness into a fetish. The question is about intelligence and processing information and making new things.

we don't know anywhere nearly enough about experience to even know where to begin on how to create consciousness — Manuel

I don't think people working in AI are even concerned with consciousness.

the very idea of associating computers with consciousness is based solely on apparent similarity of what computers do to human thinking, — enqramot

Computers don't need to be conscious. I don't see why people make a big deal out of consciousness.

You keep saying you're not going to pay attention to me any more — T Clark

I never said that, do not lie.

Sorry, but I ignore people who think dictionaries and wiki are philosophical arguments.

Forgive me for utilizing my common sense but wouldn’t that be art for the sake of decoration? — praxis

Where did you hear that phrase, Art for art's sake?

Then tell me what it means to you.

It sounds like you're regurgitating a mass delusion that human existence is meaningless. — Harry Hindu

To be fair, I think the question refers to there being no innate meaning to the universe.